Consensual Parenting redux: consent

Perhaps a simple way to phrase my discomfort with the whole “consensual parenting” concept is to consider what “consensual” means. In my experience, it means everyone participating grants their consent – meaning they agree to the terms or activities in an informed way, and have the capacity to form those agreements.

I believe it is widely accepted that children are not capable of consent – in law, in business, and in bed, trying to engage a child’s “consent” is a crime. Therefore, “consensus parenting” would have to be at best a fiction, and at worst a kind of exploitation, where children are lured into “consenting” to a level of responsibility over their own lives they do not understand and cannot live into.

I don’t think that it’s true that children aren’t capable of meaningful consent (after all, i hang out with a bunch of kids who run their own school), though obviously the legal question is quite clear.

Part of the issue here may be simply be that “child” is a very long period, and capability varies. When Zach was an infant, he was quite clear about what people he consented to be held by and not, whether he was ok with being put down, etc.

His consent wasn’t always the driving force in what happens (oh my god you have to let this person hold you i need a shower), but it was and is something that is Important, with capital letters.

It’s not consensus in the sense of “nothing will happen without the child’s consent”, but it is consensus in the sense of “the child has a strong voice in the decision making”.

It’s not the perfect phrase for it, but it may be better than my “children are people” phrase, which many folks don’t get.

And of course, this all plays out much less simply with the ten year old who skipped his shower last night to play with friends and agreed to have one this morning instead and now will try to get out of that even though he agreed to it 🙂

yeah – it was cute but clumsy to say that kids aren’t capable of consent. SVS is pretty clearly proof against that. Kids are often great at creating consensus with each other, and with adults who choose to participate in consensus with them. I think many adults could learn a lot about the process by watching six-year-olds on a playground.

But I think it is true that, particularly in family dynamics, there are huge areas where parents can’t meaningfully engage children’s consent because the power differential is just too great. And that was kind of my point. You kind of have to be a benevolent dictator.

There’s a huge onus on a parent to use power in a transparent, fair, and consistent manner because there’s little a child can do to stop you from being an autocratic, dictatorial mess. For example, SVS is a democratic school that Zack participates in, but you have the power to pull him out of that school against his will – you could stop paying his tuition bills, stop driving him to school, etc. You won’t, obviously, because you are a fair and loving parent. But he’s not a peer in that decision; he can’t take his toys and go play somewhere else if he doesn’t like how you do it. He needs your consent to his activities in a way you do not need his.

It strikes me that, as often happens, you and I are using different language/processes to come to a similar place. We parent in pretty similar ways. I’m hesitant to call that consensus because I am painfully aware of how much real power I hold in my daughters’ lives, and how great my responsibility is to use it wisely. I think you are looking at the day-to-day of how your family interacts and seeing a lot of consensus process, which is also true (and true in my house as well).

I would say that “consensus parenting” is about using a consensus process — that is, really listening to all parties — not about everyone submitting to the tyranny of the blocker. If some party in a consensus process stops following the process (as a four-year-old is quite likely to do), then of course the process has to be renegotiated.

To me, the key point of consensus parenting (or any consensus process) is that decisions should be made only after all parties have had a chance to lend their knowledge and judgment, and all parties know their needs and wishes have been fairly and reasonably taken into account, for the good of the group. When that’s done, the decisions tend to be good enough that it doesn’t really matter who is exercising the final decision power.

well, damn you and your superior logic. I kind of love the way you define consensus. Your point that following a process of inclusion and respect for all parties makes the ultimate decision-making power less important is a great one. I do think though, see also Scrivener’s comment, that letting kids know you are in charge and they are not responsible for major decisions is a good parenting practice.